If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I thought the tribes native in that area used a red berry (red ochre) as a war paint, hence the name. If so, why the big deal?
Indians also used the term red skin and white skin. Just more of a "thin skined" issue really.

If you really want to see a real redskin, put my *** outside without sunscreen.

The Redskins used to play in Boston 1932-1936. They were known as the Boston Redskins.

I guess its because of tradition. It wont be the same knowing them as something other then the Redskins. But Other teams have done it like when Oilers left Houston and became the Titans of Tenn. I know its different cause they left the State. Also the Browns leaving Cleveland and becoming the Baltimore Ravens. Baltimore Colts to Indy Colts. Old Washington Generals gone. Montreal Expos gone. Washington Nationals formed.. but this being in same state just changing the name outright is totally different for fans of that franchise.. NBA with Charlotte Hornets moving to NO. but kept the name

Just stay in Washington, the NBA Bullets became the Wizards because bullets are offensive lol

Also I hear the Charlotte Bob's Cats will be changing their names to Hornets.

Who's property? Snyder's, or the Native Americans from a few centuries ago?

Snyder, it's his team and the symbols of it. Are you going to start crying because Minnesota uses the culture of the Vikings for a capitalist enterprise? What about the Cowboys? Why is their symbol a WHITE cowboy when it's been documented that at least 1/4th of American Cowboys was either of black or Hispanic heritage. What about the Patriots? Why don't they honor the freeman and our Indian allies who did right with us against our English oppressors?

The answer is it's no one's damn business but the people who own the trademark. If people want to boycott the Washington team they should be doing so in the public square, not attempting to deny a free citizen of the country his property rights.

Property rights are one of the founding ideas or our society and system, that are not up for debate because of hurt feelings. And if you want to get technical Snyder still owns the common law rights to his team trademark, no matter what bureaucrat is trying to score political points. Hell even the Hell's Angels a criminal organization has the rights to their symbols and colors, and have sued people in court to protect them. This is nothing more then the federal government trying to score political points and further distract people. And no matter my feelings on the Redskins subject, I find this to be considerably more disgust because it's the abuse of actual rights in order to score political points.

Snyder, it's his team and the symbols of it. Are you going to start crying because Minnesota uses the culture of the Vikings for a capitalist enterprise? What about the Cowboys? Why is their symbol a WHITE cowboy when it's been documented that at least 1/4th of American Cowboys was either of black or Hispanic heritage. What about the Patriots? Why don't they honor the freeman and our Indian allies who did right with us against our English oppressors?

The answer is it's no one's damn business but the people who own the trademark. If people want to boycott the Washington team they should be doing so in the public square, not attempting to deny a free citizen of the country his property rights.

Property rights are one of the founding ideas or our society and system, that are not up for debate because of hurt feelings. And if you want to get technical Snyder still owns the common law rights to his team trademark, no matter what bureaucrat is trying to score political points. Hell even the Hell's Angels a criminal organization has the rights to their symbols and colors, and have sued people in court to protect them. This is nothing more then the federal government trying to score political points and further distract people. And no matter my feelings on the Redskins subject, I find this to be considerably more disgust because it's the abuse of actual rights in order to score political points.

Well, I'll respectfully disagree..

Nobody is taking Snyder's NFL franchise away from him. So to compare that (which is far from happening) to how the Native American has been raped over the centuries is ludicrous. If Syder wants "public funds" on a new facility for fhis "private property" football team, then the "nickname" of his team should not offend "anybody in this country", and the nickname, "Redskins" offends a lot of Native Americans.

Also to compare the nickname Redskins to Cowboys, Patriots, Vikings (you can add Pirates, Chiefs, Blackhawks, Braves, Indians andeven Yankees to the list) is ridiculous, because all those names aren't offensive, like the nickname, "Redskins".

They just denied him his right to his intellectual property, outside of his common law rights which I mentioned. They are trying to deny him the right to his trademarked brand. A right every citizen of the Republic has no matter the feelings people have of said trademark. As I said even a criminal organization such as the Hell's Angels, an organization that has been involved in murder, drug and gun trafficking, has a right to their property. Morality and personal feelings has nothing to do with it.

Some feminist argue that pornography is an anti female construct that is used to sexualize women, and treat them as property of men. A patriarchal institution that treats women as mere objects.That doesn't stop Playboy, Penthouse, and other providers of pornographic material from having the rights to their names and brands. Because rights are not based on feelings.

So to compare that (which is far from happening) to how the Native American has been raped over the centuries is ludicrous.

Their are plenty of trademarked ideas and symbols that people don't like. Some that people claim are hazardous to society. That doesn't change the fact that people have a right to those symbols and ideas. Their are members of the Hell's Angels club who have been convicted of rape. Doesn't mean that the club doesn't still own their death head symbol or colors. Further Snyder hasn't raped or killed anyone, in fact he has done nothing that would deny him his natural right to own property.

If Syder wants "public funds" on a new facility for fhis "private property" football team, then the "nickname" of his team should not offend "anybody in this country", and the nickname, "Redskins" offends a lot of Native Americans.

The fact that the system is corrupted by government agencies who choose to give tax payer money to private citizens for economic development is another matter that has no bearing on this issue. If it did every citizen who went on a social welfare programs would have a certain amount of their rights curtailed based on the time they are on government assistance. Yet people on welfare still have the right to write books, and trademark brands and ideas. Their have been companies that were started by broke people in the past, and I'm sure their will be others in the future. For the record I'm against public funds being dedicated to any private institution, but again it has nothing to do with rights. Rights are not up for a vote. Rights are not a popularity contest, they exist on their own. That's why they are known as "natural rights", because nothing that is done changes the fact that they exist. Even when rights are denied as happened to many American Indians over the years doesn't change the fact that they had rights. Snyder has property rights, and they are being abused for political purposes. That's wrong no matter what form it takes. It isn't up to a debate about feelings.

It's an arbitrary abuse based on political calculations.

Also to compare the nickname Redskins to Cowboys, Patriots, Vikings (you can add Pirates, Chiefs, Blackhawks, Braves, Indians andeven Yankees to the list) is ridiculous, because all those names aren't offensive, like the nickname, "Redskins".

Offensive to whom? A vocal minority? Politicians who see an issue that they can make political hay out of and fill their coffers for upcoming elections? A name or factor being "offensive" to someone doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to rights. The fact is you can look at trademarks that are still issued and allowed today that offend plenty of people. I'd list them out here now, but good taste restrains me at this moment.

Furthermore my point about people being "offended" is that this sets the precedent that it only requires a vocal minority to overturn someones natural rights, which is wrong. People can make the cases with the names you listed, that private individuals are using those collective cultures in order to make their own private fortunes, something that many people consider wrong and would call it "cultural theft/ appropriation" for a capitalist cause. As I said their are people who consider pornography to be morally wrong, their are people who consider certain songs to be morally wrong, certain ideas to be morally wrong, certain books to be morally wrong. BOO HOO. People's views on moral issues has nothing to do with self evident rights.

Which is what happens in the real world. Pornographers can trademark their name and brands. So can musicians no matter how offended people get about their music,lyrics, how they dress, or the themes of their songs. So can authors no matter how many people are offended by their work. Rights are not based on the level of offense the cause to people, and the way this has been handled by an over reaching federal bureaucracy in order to score political points is sickening, and I doubt the people who are cheering this idea now would be if the same principle of "offense" was applied to things that had a vocal minority against it.

Finally if "redskins" annoys you to the point where you believe you have the duty to deny a fellow citizen the same right you have, I expect you to also begin demanding that that state of Oklahoma changes it name.

Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red"). Recorded history for the name "Oklahoma" began with Spanish explorer Coronado in 1541 on his quest for the "Lost City of Gold." Oklahoma became the 46th state on November 16, 1907.

Or is it simply the word "skin" that bothers you? If they were called the "Washing Redpeople" or "Washington Redmen" would you be fine with it?

The case has yet to be made satisfactorily that Snyder's right should be denied. A criminal organization like the Hell's Angels who have take part in murder, rape, and trafficking of illegal contraband have rights, but Snyder shouldn't because it "offends" people who have ties to point scoring bureaucrats and politicians? Give me a break.